"One solution may be an interim fuel, which would pave the way for the later adoption of hydrogen. Some manufacturers have favoured methanol as a source of hydrogen, because it is relatively easy to reform - the term for extracting hydrogen from a liquid fuel.
But oil companies have tended to be unenthusiastic about methanol because of the problems of distributing a toxic, corrosive fuel. In addition, the industry is concerned about the costs of gearing up to provide a less-than-ideal fuel such as methanol, only to switch again a few years later to hydrogen.
Some manufacturers believe that the most likely interim fuel for fuel cell cars is a refined, sulphur-free blend of petrol, which requires no new distribution infrastructure. In August, General Motors and Exxon Mobil announced that they had developed a highly efficient gasoline fuel processor for fuel cell vehicles."
Source: Financial Times, 21st September, 2000
Big push to reduce fuel emission problems: The Environment
by Vanessa Houlder:
The car manufacturers and the oil companies have joined forces in an attempt to consider alternative sources of power.
Faced with the prospect of ever-tougher environmental regulations, the automotive industry is exploring radical options to reduce emissions.
A number of partnerships between carmakers and fuel providers have sprung up to consider alternative power sources.
In August, Ford said it was joining forces with BP Amoco to explore new fuel technologies. Ford also has a collaboration with Daimler-Chrysler and Ballard Power Systems to develop a fuel cell car, which generates clean energy from hydrogen. Fuel cell technology is also being explored by DaimlerChrysler and Royal Dutch/ Shell.
Already, automotive companies are able to announce significant progress. For example, this summer General Motors unveiled the Opel Zafira or HydroGen1, which is one of the most powerful fuel cell prototypes yet devised.
But a number of problematic issues need to be resolved before such hydrogen-based prototypes move into the mainstream. Some sceptics doubt whether hydrogen will be acceptable to consumers, because of fears about the flammability of hydrogen.
Additional obstacles are presented by the need to design and build a large number of hydrogen refuelling stations, develop feasible onboard fuel tanks and agree industrywide specifications.
One solution may be an interim fuel, which would pave the way for the later adoption of hydrogen. Some manufacturers have favoured methanol as a source of hydrogen, because it is relatively easy to reform - the term for extracting hydrogen from a liquid fuel.
But oil companies have tended to be unenthusiastic about methanol because of the problems of distributing a toxic, corrosive fuel. In addition, the industry is concerned about the costs of gearing up to provide a less-than-ideal fuel such as methanol, only to switch again a few years later to hydrogen.
Some manufacturers believe that the most likely interim fuel for fuel cell cars is arefined, sulphur-free blend of petrol, which requires no new distribution infrastructure. In August, General Motors and Exxon Mobil announced that they had developed a highly efficient gasoline fuel processor for fuel cell vehicles.
The excitement about the development of fuel cell cars is palpable. On the face of it, the fuel cell offers performance comparable to the internal combustion engine with virtually no noise or troublesome emissions.
But its environmental credentials depend, to a large extent, on the source of the hydrogen. A life cycle analysis, carried out by the Pembina Institute in Canada suggests that the environmental advantages are less clear cut than is often assumed.
If the hydrogen used in a fuel cell car is produced by electrolysis using renewable energy, it is near-perfect in terms of emissions reductions. But, in most countries, renewable energy is in short supply. If, conversely, conventional electricity sources are used to generate hydrogen by electrolysis, the report suggested that there would be no reduction - and possibly, even an increase - in greenhouse gas emissions.
If the hydrogen is generated by processing petrol or methanol on board the car, the report estimated that greenhouse gases would be reduced by up to one-third. However, those savings could be rivalled by the fuel efficiencies generated by using improved conventional engines. Significant further improvements in the efficiency of processors would be needed to provide big environmental advantages.
Reforming natural gas produced the greatest greenhouse gas emissions reductions, cutting about 70 per cent of the emissions produced by a conventional engine.
The study concluded that the full life cycle implications of the various systems must be fully taken into account from the outset in choosing between them, or an important environmental opportunity would be squandered.
Some environmental campaigners would prefer manufacturers to concentrate on improving the fuel economy of conventional vehicles, in the belief that a large scale transition to fuel cell technology is a long way off. Earlier this year, Allied Business Inc, a US research group, predicted that fuel cell cars would take about 4 per cent of the market by 2010, with the US leading the way, followed by Japan and Europe.
The case for improving the fuel efficiency of conventional vehicles has also moved sharply into focus for consumers and manufacturers, as petrol prices escalated during the past year. Meanwhile, governments are closely scrutinising the efficiency of the transport sector, as they struggle to meet their international commitments to cut greenhouse gas emissions.
In Europe, transport emissions are increasing as a result of increased traffic and the use of heavier and more powerful vehicles, according to the European Environment Agency.
This trend is even more marked in the US, where transport emissions rose by 2.9 per cent last year. This rise has been fuelled by the vogue for the relatively fuel-hungry sports utility vehicles and light trucks. In response to the demands of customers and governments, manufacturers are promising to improve vehicles' fuel economy.
In 1998, the European Commission reached agreement with the European Automobile Manufacturers Association to reduce the average fuel consumption of new cars sold in the European Union by 25 per cent between 1995 and 2008.
The EU has a further target of a 35 per cent reduction in average fuel consumption of new cars by 2005 and 2010 at the latest, compared with 1995. It aims to achieve this by fiscal incentives and by giving car purchasers more information.
In the US, manufacturers are also promising to make improvements. In July, for example, Ford announced it would increase the fuel economy of its sports utility vehicles by 25 per cent by 2005. The gains will be largely achieved through improvements to the engine and gearbox, through weight reductions and through improved aerodynamics.
In addition, it plans to introduce a hybrid version of its newly-introduced Escape vehicle. Such hybrids, which combine a small internal combustion engine and a battery-driven electric motor, use significantly less fuel than conventional vehicles.
Both Honda and Toyota have already launched hybrid saloon cars - the Insight and Prius, respectively - while other manufacturers also have hybrids under development.
Like fuel cell cars, the prospects for hybrid vehicles are not yet clear. They are expensive to produce and their take-up in the US may depend on whether Congress enacts a proposed tax credit for fuel-efficient vehicles.
Numerous uncertainties surround the new generation of fuel efficient cars. Nonetheless, the scope and scale of the manufacturers' initiatives suggests that significant improvements on conventional technology will soon be realised. |
